My wife and I recently closed on what is now a total of 62 acres of forest land in Northwestern Montana!

While she agreed to sign the purchase agreement for the tree farm that we purchased, she's a bit uncomfortable with the aesthetics of the forestland. She's thinking that something a bit thicker would be more to her liking.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I've gathered a couple of example pictures. I am wondering if you, as forestry folks, can offer any comments one way or another as to the plusses and minuses of the types of land?

A couple example pictures from the forest land that we own are below:

The property that she likes better looks like this! Granted, it's not a sixty acre tree farm. It's a rural residential parcel in a subdivision.

My thoughts are: The property that we have indeed is less thick and has much less understory than the property that she likes. While I don't dislike the property that she likes, it's about 50% more expensive than the property that we own. If we ignore views and other factors like that, I have a hard time paying a 50% premium for the property that she likes.

Both look nice to me. The lower is more what I'm used to; Dense, and hard to walk through. The upper is like park land. Being able to walk through big trees without cutting your way through is an amazing experience I've seldom had.

I live on a 1ac suburban lot, and I've let it grow up, and get fairly unkempt by suburban standards. It's a green cloak that makes me feel comfortable. A wild tree pops up, and it generally stays. Wineberry, and blackberry vines sprout up, and I keep them at least until fruiting season's over. After, I may or may not cut them down. Not sure what I'm getting at, but there's no accounting for taste. I'm also not familiar with Montana, but it seems to me 62ac gives you a lot of room for experimentation, and it's easier thickening things up than thinning them out. Just requires patience. I see no reason you can't have both.

Forests have different stages with different understory or lack of. The land you own is more mature and easier to explore and enjoy and you own it.The other lot will look like the one you have in 10-15 years, they are the same at different stages of maturity.

I've worked for over 40 years to make our tree farm look like your top photos. That's how a well managed tree farm should look. One thing that no one has mentioned is fire damage control. Your tree farm is much less likely to be totally wiped by a fire, with the trees spread out, and the under story kept close to the ground.

bigtrees--nice looking land! If you cut some timber, scarify the earth a bit, you will see what comes up for understory from self seeding. Dakota--here in NE, have worked for past 60 yrs on our Tree Farm on growing understory, middlestory and overstory with mixed hardwood/softwood. All the best, Rob.

The top one looks best to me. May I suggest you get a Forest Stewardship plan written up to aid in the best management of the land. Locally I had mine written up by a New York State forester, at no charge. He walked the land with me, asked what my goals were then wrote up a suggested plan. He then sent me a copy for my input and once we were both on the same page he finalized the plan. It was a ten year plan which ran out 4 years ago. It got me set to make the most timber over the long run while also developing my sugar bush. Mine is only on 14.5 acres.You may want to contact your county or state to see what services they offer, or you may want to hire your own forester to do it.Part of your plan could easily set a block aside to end up more to your wife's liking, but make sure she sees the fire hazards related to that.If sun and enough moisture get to the ground, you will get something growing, usually briers at first.

Fire isn't something that comes to mind for me. Around here, under normal conditions, it would be an achievement to set a woods on fire with a flamethrower. Under dry conditions, you'd have to be exceptionally careless(half trying) to get a woods to light.

Your property as stated previously has been managed to be a mature forest. It appears the tree types are Douglas Fir and Western Larch. And a grassland underneath. To add understory (which I wouldn't - but that's me) you need a shade tolerant species - even though it looks open - it really isn't. And control the grass where you would consider adding trees, otherwise effort will be for naught. And trees grow slow in that neck of the woods.

A couple of posts have touched on this but to me the most important issue will be forest fires.

Tom & I come from a part of the continent where forest fires are a big concern. I'm pretty sure Western Montana will have similar issues.

I built a house in the middle of a forest that looked a lot like the bottom picture. After a serious fire scare thirty years ago I'm gradually making the forest around my house look like the top picture.

Western Larch and Douglas-Fir are known for their fire resistance as long as you prevent "ladders" that will take a ground fire into the crowns.

I'm hoping to build on the acres that we bought, someday in the future.

Looking at your profile pics, I'm thinking you live out in Twin Bridges area. The property we bought is about 10 minutes south of that on Farm-to-Market road, not far from the pig farm.

Would you be willing to share your opinion on the two properties?

Farm-to-Market is a beautiful area, rural, but not too far from Kalispell or Whitefish. If you're planning on building someday, I'd factor in the costs. Road/driveway. How far would you have to go to bring in electricity etc. As others have mentioned, defendable space and fire is a big deal. The DNRC, if requested, will come to your property and give you an evaluation for free. Where is the second place located?